|
Post by icefisher on Apr 6, 2010 15:39:41 GMT
JB is right about one thing. The El Nino will end and global temperatures will fall. The question is - how far will they fall. Will they settle at the background levels of the past ~10 years, fall to pre-1998 levels or settle at a ne w higher background level. If La Nina follows quickly after the El Nino ends there will be a very sharp drop as Bastardi says but this is likely to be short term (similar to 1998-2001). You are right that this El Nino is nowhere near as intense as the 1997-98 El Nino, but the 2010 Jan-Feb-Mar UAH anomalies are running ahead of the 1998 Jan-Feb-Mar anomalies. I'm not totally convinced how much effect the PDO is going to have. According to a number of researchers, the PDO has been in a cool phase for several years which suggests that global temperatures have been 'dampened' in the last decade - yet there has been no cooling. Cold phase PDO's tend to have cooling influences but cold phase PDOs do not generally result in significant cooling. Do you have evidence otherwise? I think one has to take into consideration that during cool phases of the PDO's the heat content of the ocean is likely generally rising. Which makes the recent ARGO data all the more intriguing.
|
|
|
Post by glc on Apr 6, 2010 20:49:41 GMT
I think one has to take into consideration that during cool phases of the PDO's the heat content of the ocean is likely generally rising. Which makes the recent ARGO data all the more intriguing.The ARGO data you refer to is only for the top 700m. However, ARGO observations show that warming has continued in the top 2000m. See tinyurl.com/yeurhn3The plot comes from this paper: www.euro-argo.eu/content/download/49437/368494/file/VonSchukmann_et_al_2009_inpress.pdfWhich states (see 5. Conclusion) During the six years of in-situ measurements [2003-2008], an oceanic warming of 0.77 ± 0.11 Wm−2 occurred in the upper 2000m depth of the water column.
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Apr 6, 2010 23:42:19 GMT
I think one has to take into consideration that during cool phases of the PDO's the heat content of the ocean is likely generally rising. Which makes the recent ARGO data all the more intriguing.The ARGO data you refer to is only for the top 700m. However, ARGO observations show that warming has continued in the top 2000m. See tinyurl.com/yeurhn3The plot comes from this paper: www.euro-argo.eu/content/download/49437/368494/file/VonSchukmann_et_al_2009_inpress.pdfWhich states (see 5. Conclusion) During the six years of in-situ measurements [2003-2008], an oceanic warming of 0.77 ± 0.11 Wm−2 occurred in the upper 2000m depth of the water column. That is not what climate models predict, and please explain how heat bypasses the top 700m of ocean when 85% of the heat resides there. More BS apologetics for AGW. No matter what happens, there's always an out; nothing is falsifiable. The stratosphere doesn't cool, must be ozone. The troposphere doesn't warm, must be faulty data or anything can warm it. The surface doesn't warm, its only a blip on the radar. Ice extent doesn't continue disappearing, oh its "ice volume". “The oceans are absorbing more than 80 percent of the heat from global warming,” he says. “If you aren’t measuring heat content in the upper ocean, you aren’t measuring global warming.” - Josh Willis So that is now old science?
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Apr 7, 2010 7:28:22 GMT
I think one has to take into consideration that during cool phases of the PDO's the heat content of the ocean is likely generally rising. Which makes the recent ARGO data all the more intriguing.The ARGO data you refer to is only for the top 700m. However, ARGO observations show that warming has continued in the top 2000m. See tinyurl.com/yeurhn3The plot comes from this paper: www.euro-argo.eu/content/download/49437/368494/file/VonSchukmann_et_al_2009_inpress.pdfWhich states (see 5. Conclusion) During the six years of in-situ measurements [2003-2008], an oceanic warming of 0.77 ± 0.11 Wm−2 occurred in the upper 2000m depth of the water column. You have all the integrity of a politician GLC. So you picked the minority opinion Its interesting but if you read up on the matter you will find that neutral scientists came up with different answers. Leuliette etal and Willis etal both show cooling. Willis did only look at the upper layers but says in his paper he did that because of the shortage of profiles beyond 1,000 meters. No doubt he would have loved to have measured deeper but made a decision to go for precision rather than increase his chances of coming up with a bogus study. Profiles have been increasing over time but Von Schuckmann eliminated over 600 profiles above and beyond what Willis eliminated not for an identified leak problem like Willis did but instead because of the profiles showing undesirable anomalies. . . .making the sample even smaller. So yeah you found a paper. . . .but how good is it? www.ocean-sci-discuss.net/6/C736/2009/osd-6-C736-2009.pdfibis.grdl.noaa.gov/SAT/SeaLevelRise/documents/NOAA_NESDIS_Sea_Level_Rise_Budget_Report_2009.pdf
|
|
|
Post by neilhamp on Apr 19, 2010 7:51:11 GMT
To update my previous posting The UK Met Office claim that 2010 will be the hottest year on record. The prolonged 2009/2010 El Nino is helping so far, but i note the SOI has been postive for the past 20 days. It looks as though it might be coming to an end I thought I would check out the 1998 records and compare with 2010. March is the first month this year to exceed the 1998 record We await with interest the months of April and May
HadCRU 1998 2010 Jan. 0.492 0.495 Feb. 0.756 0.460 Mar 0.55 0.57 Apr 0.65 May 0.60
UHA 1998 2010 Jan. 0.58 0.63 Feb. 0.76 0.62 Mar. 0.53 0.65 Apr. 0.76 May 0.65
|
|
|
Post by glc on Apr 19, 2010 8:37:58 GMT
To update my previous posting The UK Met Office claim that 2010 will be the hottest year on record. The prolonged 2009/2010 El Nino is helping so far, but i note the SOI has been postive for the past 20 days. It looks as though it might be coming to an end I thought I would check out the 1998 records and compare with 2010. March is the first month this year to exceed the 1998 record We await with interest the months of April and May HadCRU 1998 2010 Jan. 0.492 0.495 Feb. 0.756 0.460 Mar 0.55 0.57 Apr 0.65 May 0.60 UHA 1998 2010 Jan. 0.58 0.63 Feb. 0.76 0.62 Mar. 0.53 0.65 Apr. 0.76 May 0.65 This El Nino is not as intense as the 1997/98 El Nino. The current El nino is more like the one in 2002/03 or the one in 1987. Of course, despite low solar activity AND cool PDO, temperatures are much higher than they were in 1987.
|
|
|
Post by neilhamp on Apr 19, 2010 10:05:17 GMT
I quite agree GLC I am continuing to compare with 1998 because to my knowledge it was the hottest year The UK Met Office claim that 2010 will be the hottest year on record.
We can only wait to see but if a La Nina sets in the South Pacific may cool considerably by year end
|
|
|
Post by woodstove on Apr 19, 2010 14:25:18 GMT
To update my previous posting The UK Met Office claim that 2010 will be the hottest year on record. The prolonged 2009/2010 El Nino is helping so far, but i note the SOI has been postive for the past 20 days. It looks as though it might be coming to an end I thought I would check out the 1998 records and compare with 2010. March is the first month this year to exceed the 1998 record We await with interest the months of April and May HadCRU 1998 2010 Jan. 0.492 0.495 Feb. 0.756 0.460 Mar 0.55 0.57 Apr 0.65 May 0.60 UHA 1998 2010 Jan. 0.58 0.63 Feb. 0.76 0.62 Mar. 0.53 0.65 Apr. 0.76 May 0.65 This El Nino is not as intense as the 1997/98 El Nino. The current El nino is more like the one in 2002/03 or the one in 1987. Of course, despite low solar activity AND cool PDO, temperatures are much higher than they were in 1987. You purport to respect science, glc. Here is Earth's temperature in Kelvins: www.junkscience.com/Hurricanes/absHadCRUT3an.pngTwo points: 1. Who decided that the temperature of 1900 (or 1950 or 2000) was ideal? There is no evidence that a rise of less than a Kelvin above "average" has had any negative effect on weather, climate, or anything else. 2. No one considering the ocean-atmosphere system in Kelvins would conclude that temperatures at present are "much higher," as you put it, "than they were in 1987." This is the Anomaly Fallacy, also known as unmitigated anti-science. As you're well aware, the fallacy depends on a distorted y-axis and a gullible public. Shame on you.
|
|
|
Post by glc on Apr 19, 2010 23:42:28 GMT
You purport to respect science, glc. Here is Earth's temperature in Kelvins:
www.junkscience.com/Hurricanes/absHadCRUT3an.png
Two points:
1. Who decided that the temperature of 1900 (or 1950 or 2000) was ideal? There is no evidence that a rise of less than a Kelvin above "average" has had any negative effect on weather, climate, or anything else. I've never said anything about the effects. 2. No one considering the ocean-atmosphere system in Kelvins would conclude that temperatures at present are "much higher," as you put it, "than they were in 1987." This is the Anomaly Fallacy, also known as unmitigated anti-science. As you're well aware, the fallacy depends on a distorted y-axis and a gullible public. Shame on you.Temperatures are much higher when compared to the relative changes over the last several decades and probably over a much longer period. I don't know what you mean by the "anomaly fallacy". There is no fallacy about it. Your earlier point about the Kelvin scale is not valid. Global temperatures during the Last Glacial Maximum were only about 5 or 6 degrees below what they are to-day. This represents a change of only ~2% - yet the effects were dramatic. AGW is expected to result in a ~0.2 deg per decade increase in global temperatures. This has been widely publicised for at least 20 years. In order to monitor this expected incease, it makes perfect sense to record the anomalies relative to a given period.
|
|
|
Post by woodstove on Apr 20, 2010 1:16:38 GMT
I've never said anything about the effects. Oh, OK, got it. So you think the effects will be good?
|
|
|
Post by glc on Apr 20, 2010 8:18:44 GMT
I've never said anything about the effects. Oh, OK, got it. So you think the effects will be good? I would have thought the effects were likely to be mixed. Some regions might see a benefit while others may not.
|
|
|
Post by northsphinx on Apr 20, 2010 11:40:47 GMT
I think one has to take into consideration that during cool phases of the PDO's the heat content of the ocean is likely generally rising. Which makes the recent ARGO data all the more intriguing.The ARGO data you refer to is only for the top 700m. However, ARGO observations show that warming has continued in the top 2000m. See tinyurl.com/yeurhn3The plot comes from this paper: www.euro-argo.eu/content/download/49437/368494/file/VonSchukmann_et_al_2009_inpress.pdfWhich states (see 5. Conclusion) During the six years of in-situ measurements [2003-2008], an oceanic warming of 0.77 ± 0.11 Wm−2 occurred in the upper 2000m depth of the water column. From Your link page 20: "Large interannual fluctuations dominate the hydrographic field in the North Atlantic, and temperature and salinity anomalies change sign due to the meridional movements of the subtropical and subpolar fronts [Eden and Willebrand, 2001]. Superimposed on these interannual fluctuations are long-term changes. A clear warming and increase in salinity from the year 2003 to 2008 can be observed in the area between 30±N-50±N. A rapid increase of temperature and salinity since the 1990s is also observed in 50 years of hydrographic time series in the northeast North Atlantic and Nordic Seas [Holliday et al., 2008]. A recent increase in salinity due to decadal variability in that area was also reported by Hatun et al. [2005]. Furthermore, the findings of Häkkinen and Rhines [2004] indicate that those changes are associated with fluctuations of the subpolar gyre strength." And from Wiki: "Subpolar gyres form at high latitudes (around 60°). Circulation of surface wind and ocean water is counterclockwise in the Northern Hemisphere, around a low-pressure area, such as the persistent Aleutian Low and the Icelandic Low. Surface currents generally move outward from the center of the system. This drives the Ekman transport, which creates an upwelling of nutrient-rich water from the lower depths" Even ocean temperatures is a function of global air circulation. Icelandic low in this case. And how is NAO defined?
|
|
|
Post by magellan on May 6, 2010 1:03:21 GMT
GLC, In 1998 the El Nino was very much stronger The 1998 ENSO was above 2 from January through to May. The 2009/2010 El Nino in the South Pacific seems to be subsiding. This ENSO has just reached 1.5, but the SOI is currently strongly positive Will these high global temperatures continue into April and May? UHA 1998 2010 Jan. 0.58 0.63 Feb. 0.76 0.62 Mar. 0.53 0.65 Apr. 0.76 May 0.65 I notice Joe Bastardi has just commented on the declineing El Nino www.accuweather.com/ukie/bastardi-europe-blog.asp?partner=accuweatherJB is right about one thing. The El Nino will end and global temperatures will fall. The question is - how far will they fall. Will they settle at the background levels of the past ~10 years, fall to pre-1998 levels or settle at a ne w higher background level. If La Nina follows quickly after the El Nino ends there will be a very sharp drop as Bastardi says but this is likely to be short term (similar to 1998-2001). You are right that this El Nino is nowhere near as intense as the 1997-98 El Nino, but the 2010 Jan-Feb-Mar UAH anomalies are running ahead of the 1998 Jan-Feb-Mar anomalies. I'm not totally convinced how much effect the PDO is going to have. According to a number of researchers, the PDO has been in a cool phase for several years which suggests that global temperatures have been 'dampened' in the last decade - yet there has been no cooling. You are right that this El Nino is nowhere near as intense as the 1997-98 El Nino, but the 2010 Jan-Feb-Mar UAH anomalies are running ahead of the 1998 Jan-Feb-Mar anomalies. Care to modify that? I'm not totally convinced how much effect the PDO is going to have. According to a number of researchers, the PDO has been in a cool phase for several years which suggests that global temperatures have been 'dampened' in the last decade - yet there has been no cooling. Excuse me?
|
|
|
Post by glc on May 6, 2010 10:53:10 GMT
Excuse me?
I said there has been no cooling in response to the PDO "shift". When the PDO shifted to a warmer phase in ~1976, places like Alaska warmed immediately and very noticeably. Atmospheric temperature should respond to a shift in ocean circulation. It hasn't happened.
You keep showing the top 700m ocean temperatures which appears to show a slight but probably NOT significant cooling. I know how keen you are on statistical significance. However there is good evidence to suggest that warming has continued at greater depths (2000m). This is supported by the fact that sea levels have continued to rise - albeit more slowly than previously.
Whatever, if the oceans are cooling this will be reflected in the air temperatures and it shouldn't take long. I'd give the ARGO readings a bit longer before relying on them too much. There's an awful lot being interpreted from just 6 years of data.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on May 6, 2010 14:11:51 GMT
Excuse me?I said there has been no cooling in response to the PDO "shift". When the PDO shifted to a warmer phase in ~1976, places like Alaska warmed immediately and very noticeably. Atmospheric temperature should respond to a shift in ocean circulation. It hasn't happened. Well rather than guessing what it might be. Roy Spencer has some information to base discussion on at least. Changing albedo. The question of course is what is the source of that? Chaotic climate?
|
|